IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v10y1990i01p67-88_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Implementation Through Framing Smarter Statutes

Author

Listed:
  • Ingram, Helen
  • Schneider, Anne

Abstract

Statutory design is the source of many problems encountered in implementation, yet policy scholars have not made much headway in providing coherent and consistent advice for framing smarter statutes. There is a great deal of disagreement about how much discretion statutes should leave to implementers, and four distinct and conflicting schools of thought have emerged. This article advises that none of the perspectives is always correct and patterns for allocating discretion should take into account the implementation context. Contexts vary from statute to statute and may change for different policy elements within particular policies. The core elements in policy content are identified and linked in a scheme that is more comprehensive and relevant to policy results than previous work. The article also provides a ‘value-added’ conception of implementation in which the extent of discretion exercised by implementers is measured by changes they make in the core elements of policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingram, Helen & Schneider, Anne, 1990. "Improving Implementation Through Framing Smarter Statutes," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 67-88, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:10:y:1990:i:01:p:67-88_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X00004682/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Theofanis Exadaktylos & Nikolaos Zahariadis & Maria Mavrikou, 2023. "Reforms in Health Policy during the Greek Bailout: what makes reform successful and why?," GreeSE – Hellenic Observatory Papers on Greece and Southeast Europe 188, Hellenic Observatory, LSE.
    2. Giliberto Capano & Jun Jie Woo, 2017. "Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 399-426, September.
    3. Peter J. May & Raymond J. Burby, 1996. "Coercive versus cooperative policies: Comparing intergovernmental mandate performance," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 171-201.
    4. Steven Tiesdell, 2001. "A Forgotten Policy? A Perspective On The Evolution And Transformation Of Housing Action Trust Policy, 1987–99," European Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 357-383.
    5. Alice Moseley & Oliver James, 2008. "Central State Steering of Local Collaboration: Assessing the Impact of Tools of Meta-governance in Homelessness Services in England," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 117-136, June.
    6. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    7. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    8. Exadaktylos, Theofanis & Zahariadis, Nikolaos & Mavrikou, Maria, 2023. "Reforms in health policy during the Greek bailout: what makes reform successful and why?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120168, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Raul Lejano & Savita Shankar, 2013. "The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 83-102, March.
    10. Andrew Jordan & Elah Matt, 2014. "Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 227-247, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:10:y:1990:i:01:p:67-88_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.